Social disturbances in preindustrial Europe have been ascribed to a variety of …

Economic chaos, famine, disease, and war may all be attributed to climate change, according to a recent study. Through advances in paleoclimatology, researchers used temperature data and climate-driven economic variables to simulate the climate that prevailed during golden and dark ages in Europe and the Northern Hemisphere from 1500-1800 AD. In doing so, they discovered a set of casual linkages between climate change and human crisis. They noted that social disturbance, societal collapse and population collapse often coincided with significant climate change in America, the Middle East, China, and many other countries in preindustrial times, suggesting that climate change was the ultimate cause of human crisis in many preindustrial societies.

The General Crisis of the 17th Century in Europe was marked by widespread economic distress, social unrest, and population decline. A significant cause of mankind’s woes during these times was the climate-induced shrinkage of agricultural production. Bioproductivity, agricultural production, and food supply per capita all showed immediate responses to changes in temperature. In the five to 30 years following these changes, there were also responses in terms of social disturbance, war, migration, nutritional status, epidemics, and famine.

Cooling during the Cold Phase (1560-1660 AD) reduced crop yields by shortening the growing season and shrinking the cultivated land area. Although agricultural production decreased or became stagnant in a cold climate, population size still grew, leading to an increase in grain price and an increased demand on food supplies. Inflating grain prices led to hardships for many, and triggered social problems and conflicts such as rebellions, revolutions, and political reforms.

Many of these disturbances led to armed conflicts, and the number of wars increased 41 percent during the Cold Phase. During the latter portion of the Cold Phase, the number of wars decreased, but the wars lasted longer and were far more lethal—most notable was the Thirty Years War (1618-1648), where fatalities were more than 12 times of the conflicts between 1500-1619.

Famine became more frequent too. Nutrition deteriorated, and the average height of Europeans shrunk 2cm by the late 16th century. As temperatures began to rise again after 1650, so did the average height.

The economic chaos, famine, and war led people to emigrate, and Europe saw peak migration overlapping the time of peak social disturbance. This widespread migration, in conjunction with declining health caused by poor nutrition, facilitated the spread of epidemics, and the number of plagues peaked during 1550-1670, reaching the highest level during the study period. As a result of war fatalities and famine, the annual population growth rate dropped dramatically, eventually leading to population collapse.

In the 18th century, the mild climate improved matters considerably, leading to the speedy recovery of both Europe’s economy and population.

The alternation between periods of harmony and crisis, golden ages and dark ages, closely followed variations in the food supply per capita. Consequently, grain price could be used as an indicator of crisis in preindustrial Europe. Although grain price is dictated by agricultural production and population size, analysis by the researchers shows that temperature change was the real cause behind the grain price, since agricultural production was climate-dependent at the time.

The history of golden and dark ages in Europe is often attributed to sociopolitical factors, which fails to explain the co-occurrence of long-term crises in different countries, at different stages of development, and across different climate zones. Instead, the authors make a compelling case that climate change is the culprit, thanks to a climate-driven economic downturn due to a decreasing food supply. Where there is a shrinking food supply, chaos and misery follow.

Latest Ars Video >

The Greatest Leap, Episode 3: Triumph

In honor of the 50th anniversary of the beginning of the Apollo Program, Ars Technica brings you an in depth look at the Apollo missions through the eyes of the participants.

The Greatest Leap, Episode 3: Triumph

The Greatest Leap, Episode 3: Triumph

In honor of the 50th anniversary of the beginning of the Apollo Program, Ars Technica brings you an in depth look at the Apollo missions through the eyes of the participants.

Allie Wilkinson
Allie is a freelance contributor to Ars Technica. She received a B.A. in Environmental Studies from Eckerd College and a Certificate in Conservation Biology from Columbia University's Earth Institute Center for Environmental Sustainability. Twitter@loveofscience

Shorter Volt-aire: Ban those who disagree with AGW. Because I note you only pointed out my posts, but not the doom and gloom of humans destroying everything like arcite and fromhell.

If you want to be taken seriously around here it helps not to straw-man the opposition as wanting to tax your breath or thinking that Neanderthal breathing caused past climate change. Those are ridiculous and dishonest characterizations that are trivially easy to recognize as inappropriate.

Quote:

This is a thread about "changing climate." It says so in the title, in the body of the article, and everything. Yet you want to say that attempts to point out that the earth has changed climate on its own with rather dramatic affects on humanity are beyond the pale, and should be moderated.

I'm pretty sure he didn't say anything like that. What he actually said was

Quote:

Prattling about how your political opponents will surely blame neanderthal exhalations because aren't-THOSE-people-so-stupid should really be beyond the scope of the discussion entirely.

Quote:

I asked a question: why do the AGW people assume natural climate change stopped when the first factory started up?

They don't. Nobody knows where you get this idea either, and it's pretty trivial to realize that your question is less than honest.

Quote:

And you are saying, in effect, "NO! We can't ask that kind of question in a climate change thread! Ban the deniers!"

He's saying that people making obviously stupid and dishonest don't really belong in threads about science, since it's clear science isn't your axe to grind here.

Additionally, don't forget prolonged droughts (already seen in Africa and Texas) in regions where the climate is already traditionally very warm.

Did you just blame the Texas drought on AGW?

Apparently all bad climate news is now due to AGW in some peoples minds. Which is irrational and not supported by the science. Seriously, Texas and Africa have been drought prone for thousands of years. It's not proof one way or the other.

The "Twinkie Defense" will be replaced by the "Global Climate Change / Warming / Cooling / Disruption Defense", forevermore replacing "Reasonable Doubt" with "Reasonable Confusion". I wonder how the ICC will respond to the "I was a victim of Global xxxxxx'ing" genocide defense?

My more serious question, and not the rather obvious commentary, is this: What "Natural climate change" has occurred since the 1810's or so? What natural climate change is occurring now? Because I have yet to see anything since the 1980's, aside from Mount Pinatubo, that has not been blamed on humans in some way.

In other words, how the heck would we tell if the polar caps are melting because of natural climate change vis a vis the soccer mom in her SUV? The "rate of change?" How do we know what the natural rate of change is?

And if the earth is warming 3 degrees by itself, and human involvement makes it 3.1 degree, well, that is not worth anything. Instead of the hysteria that some peddle about the end of days, such as arcite above.

By the way, has no one noticed there are FAR more trees in America now than, say, 1880? Because back then, we used charcoal. A lot. And that takes trees. Lots of them. We only use charcoal in two things now, that I'm aware of: steel making and barbeque grills. Not the primary source of heat. So our forests have recovered, quite dramatically, in fact. Hasn't anyone noticed what happens to an empty field over 50 years? It turns, most of the time, into forest. It's not like chopping an acre of trees means it is just barren ground forever more.

Then you haven't been reading - not too shocking given the quality of your 'objections'.

First, pre-1950s or so, the cooling and warming periods are regional variations. Europe ne World, even in the dark ages when European maps only showed Europe. If you had been well-read in history, perhaps you'd realize that the climate discussion is decades old. We always knew the Vikings settled Greenland ... when it was green. And abandoned it later.

Two years ago, somehow your omniscience missed this treatment of man-made vs. natural climate change in a popular publication.

But I understand, as the second coming of Christ you must have a lot on your plate. Debunking science in favor of 'common sense' anecdotes about tree growth must be exhausting. Just think how much more tired you'd be if you started counting and then adding things up in a systematic manner. Please spare yourself further trouble, we'll take your word over the obviously false statistics and scientific observations of learned professors. You don't need to get a degree to prove your knowledge, either. The quality of your scholarship is obvious to everyone here.

So does this study say why natural climate change stopped in the early 1800s when human industry started up? Because since then, according to everyone, man is the sole responsible party for the "climate change" we have. It's warming? Humans with their coal! It's cooling? Aerosols and pollution blocking out the sun! It's wetter? Increased particulates in the air causing water condensation! It's drier? Humans chopping down trees and using water! It's all the evil humans fault! There's only one solution: Massive, massive government regulation of everything people do, with the corresponding taxes and communism! Then the human caused climate change will stop as we all go back to the stone age... and I guess natural climate change come back? So the earth gets hotter and colder and wetter and drier anyway? But hey, at least we all have to pay a tax on the air we breathe, so I guess that is a benefit. Oh, and the environmentalists get to fly to Cancun and Copenhagen while the rest of us drive a horse and buggy, IF we are lucky.

Good try at inserting FUD

The better models INCLUDE natural climate change. The most common assumption is that natural climate change is taking us into a cool period and induced climate change is sufficient to offset that & actually make the climate warmer. There is still a great deal of uncertainty as to how much of a contribution to the overall change is being provided by each component.

This uncertainty is the reason for heavily increasing research into AGW effects and methods of minimizing induced climate change or even better controlling induced climate change in order to exactly offset natural climate change.

By saying it is all a crock of dung you are taking the attitude the Catholic Church had when Galileo published his ideas. In spite of the naysayers though, 'it still moves'.

Oh, and for those who didn't realize I was exaggerating with the whole Neanderthal thing, I was. I thought I was with the taxing air bit too, but sadly I was wrong. Seems down in Australia, at least some of the "experts" want to tax babies for all the air they will breathe during their life: Link to a story about it. I'd find the direct article in the peer reviewed Medical Journal of Australia by the guy, but the website isn't loading. Oh, and using a condom is worth a carbon credit....

It's hard to parody the green movement/AGW people sometimes, it really is.

Oh, and for those who didn't realize I was exaggerating with the whole Neanderthal thing, I was. I thought I was with the taxing air bit too, but sadly I was wrong.

Um, we knew you were exaggerating. We pointed out that this is all you were doing. We said "keep doing this and you're just cluttering up the thread with inflammatory bullshit, nobody will take you seriously; write something factual instead or STFU please."

Quote:

Seems down in Australia, at least some of the "experts" want to tax babies for all the air they will breathe during their life: Link to a story about it. I'd find the direct article in the peer reviewed Medical Journal of Australia by the guy, but the website isn't loading. Oh, and using a condom is worth a carbon credit....

It's hard to parody the green movement/AGW people sometimes, it really is.

It's hard to explain just how terrible your reading comprehension has to be to interpret this as a tax on breathing. But I can only partially blame you; much credit goes to The Telegraph, for their usual bottom-notch objective reporting and spin-free-free write-up. Notice how nowhere in the article does it mention a tax on breathing, despite the sensationalist (some might say "alarmist?") headline. Instead what it seems to be talking about is a proposal design to offset the carbon footprint of a person based on the fact that they'll be using coal-generated power and gasoline-fueled cars just like everybody else in Australia.

I think his point is that generally most of the 'bad' agricultural periods were caused by relatively cold weather and that AGW is warming and thus good for crop production.

Except when it goes too far the other way. The worry is that our current breadbaskets, such as the American plains, will get too warm and dry to support most of the crops we depend on. While the current drought in Texas is fallout from a specific La Nina event, if these kinds of droughts start occurring more often, then that's going to negatively affect food production in the region.

Meanwhile, Siberia becomes the new breadbasket for Europe. While that's good news for Siberia, it doesn't help the US plains much.

Depending on where you live, the local effects of AGW may be beneficial, deleterious, or neutral.

Is it the end of the world? No, hardly. But it does have potential to be destabilizing. I foresee changes in the geopolitical pecking order due to the effects of AGW, which people who are currently at the top are going to have a hard time accepting.

It's hard to parody the green movement/AGW people sometimes, it really is.

Yes, because it's not hard at all to understand that you're using sarcasm when you say something absurd like the Neanderthal thing, and when you say something absurd like claiming people think natural climate change stopped at the industrial revolution, and really mean it.

It's (again) hard to take the deniers seriously when their sarcastical comments and serious comments are equally absurd.

Quote:

So we have historical evidence that this has been going on since before the Industrial Revolution (1700-1800+ A.D.)... Best Part?

We are still here.

Yes, and those periods of social and political chaos were such fun times to live in, I'm sure! But hey, the human race survived as a species. Clearly we don't need to worry.

I just don't get this sort of thinking. It really is like finding out that too much sun exposure gets you sun burned and drastically increases your chances of getting skin cancer, but deciding to continue fake baking 5 hours a day because, hey, I get exposed to the sun anyway. Why care that I'm adding on to the exposure that nature hits me with anyway?

Ah, so Wheel of Confusion: It's not a tax on the air a baby breathes, just an annual tax on the pollution we know they are going to cause in the future. Which we won't measure, just charge a flat fee for being alive. But whatever it is, it's not a tax on the air someone breathes!

Look, I asked a rather pertinent question: Climate change has been a real issue throughout history. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. Yet we NEVER hear about natural climate change anymore. It's all human caused, all climate change is bad, etc. When I brought it up in this thread, the answer is, "well, of course the climate changes naturally, we already measure that!"

Now, you guys are really, really sensitive to people questioning AGW. Why is it so wrong to point out that climate change is a historic fact, not connected to humans? You guys get all jumpy by people mentioning it. You guys are personally insulting me as "second coming of Jesus", as "horrible reading comprehension', as a "bomb thrower." Yet I'm not the one claiming that the droughts in Texas are AGW caused. I'm not the one saying that humans are turning the blue earth into brown sludge. I'm not the one saying the oceans are dying because of humans. I'm not the one saying the oceans are turning red because of human activity. All of these are solely and completely laid at the foot of mankind in this very thread. Yet when someone points out that these things happen without mankind involvement, you guys freak out.

Why? Why is having humans be the bad guy such a critical thing and so important?

Shorter Volt-aire: Ban those who disagree with AGW. Because I note you only pointed out my posts, but not the doom and gloom of humans destroying everything like arcite and fromhell.

Pointing out the potential consequences is not "doom and gloom". Considering the worst case scenario that has a realistic probability of happening is part of effective risk management and contingency planning.

Quote:

This is a thread about "changing climate." It says so in the title, in the body of the article, and everything. Yet you want to say that attempts to point out that the earth has changed climate on its own with rather dramatic affects on humanity are beyond the pale, and should be moderated.

No one said that. That's the entire point of the article. No rational person in this thread is saying that the Earth's climate doesn't change naturally. You and those like you are using the topic as a vehicle to hijack this thread with your own anti-AGW agenda.

Quote:

I asked a question: why do the AGW people assume natural climate change stopped when the first factory started up? And you are saying, in effect, "NO! We can't ask that kind of question in a climate change thread! Ban the deniers!"

Again, no one said that. You made it up. You make things up every single fsking thread on climate change with complete disregard to reason and reality.

Quote:

In a forum where people have said that people who deny AGW are stupid mouthbreathers, and did not get moderated for so saying, you types should be able to handle a little dissent. But then, dissent isn't very good is it?

Rational, reasoned, educated dissent is fine. Hyperbole and pulling things out of your ass annoys a lot of us.

Quote:

Edit to respond to Wheels of confusion: I'm the one being "hysterical," when in the exact same post you blame humans for melting glaciers and destroying the ocean and causing acid rain, and then get offended that I say that is what AGW people parrot? I fail to see how anything I said is, in fact, more hysterical than what others in this thread have said.

We were the cause of acid rain you buffoon. There was a very clear link between SO2 and NOx emissions and acid rain that was largely dealt with by a variety of international treaties (Sulphur Emissions Reduction Protocol and Air Quality Agreement of 1990) and the Acid Rain Program emissions trading system introduced by the EPA. When was the last time you heard anything about acid rain being a problem in the US? The problem is largely solved and industry didn't collapse. There was much hand-wringing and denial on the part of industry back then just as there is now when we speak of regulating CO2 emissions. The same thing happened with the Montreal Protocol (CFCs and ozone).

Quote:

If you think I'm being hysterical, then show me the climate change universally acknowledged as not human caused, even partially, in the last two hundred years. Only volcanoes fit the bill, and even they have people being blamed partially. So where is the totally natural climate change?

The ENSO cycle is a completely natural oscillation on the timescale of years with rather dramatic effects. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation happens on a 20-30 year cycle and also has rather large effects on climate. No serious climatologist would say these are caused by humans.

The response to global warming and human carbon emissions should be focused on replacing our fossil fuel infrastructure with a new carbon-free source. There is currently really only one way to do this economically, and that is to finish developing a technology pioneered at Oak Ridge National Laboratories back in the 60s- the molten salt reactor.

We do not have to endlessly bicker about the reality of AGW and proposals to regulate carbon emissions. We can build something far better and cheaper, that works, and which can become the dominant source of energy production within a few decades.

We can effectively replace both the coal and petroleum industries with this Green Nuclear silver bullet, but it is going to require significant public support. As people begin to understand the relationship between energy production and the economy, it should become easier to get people on board.

Are there any new theories as to what prompted the cold period? I had recently come across a theory that the contact with the New World and the subsequent massive population drop there, resulting in reforestation of large areas of south America in particular may have be a triggering agent.

Ah, so Wheel of Confusion: It's not a tax on the air a baby breathes, just an annual tax on the pollution we know they are going to cause in the future. Which we won't measure, just charge a flat fee for being alive. But whatever it is, it's not a tax on the air someone breathes!

Seems to be the point to me. It's being said in response to an Australian tax incentive program that comes across as promoting increased population growth, which is contrary to the idea of reducing pollution. This is not hard to extract even from the Telegraph's version.

Quote:

Look, I asked a rather pertinent question: Climate change has been a real issue throughout history. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. Yet we NEVER hear about natural climate change anymore. It's all human caused, all climate change is bad, etc. When I brought it up in this thread, the answer is, "well, of course the climate changes naturally, we already measure that!"

Where was your pertinent question? Or was it so pertinent that you forgot to ask it? Seems to me you're more interested in making an accusation disguised as a genuine question.

Quote:

Now, you guys are really, really sensitive to people questioning AGW. Why is it so wrong to point out that climate change is a historic fact, not connected to humans? You guys get all jumpy by people mentioning it.

And again.

Can you please just stop? It's pretty clear nobody's being hoodwinked by your clever ruse here. You're not even interested in hearing the correct information in the first place. "DURR HURR HURR, CLIMATE CHANGED BEFORE!" No fucking duh. Nobody is ignoring this, least of all climate scientists. It is not as though everybody imagines nature has no influence over the climate, despite your constant attempts to paint it that way. Just stop. If you really want to know why people are so hung up on the anthropogenic part of AGW, the first thing to do is drop your rhetorical blinders and quit straw-manning everybody who doesn't agree with you. Ask honest questions, not "gotchas." Do not project all kinds of stupidity onto your opponents, like wanting to tax breathing. All you do in this thread is make smoke, not shed light. When you can ask an honest question without using it as as a barb, maybe then you'll get some patient attempts to inform you.

Are there any new theories as to what prompted the cold period? I had recently come across a theory that the contact with the New World and the subsequent massive population drop there, resulting in reforestation of large areas of south America in particular may have be a triggering agent.

Thoughts?

Oh, that is interesting. Link? I am curious about estimates of forest use by indigenous inhabitants. What was the population? Hundreds of thousands for the largest cities. 5-10 million total before European contact and widespread disease?

The ENSO cycle is a completely natural oscillation on the timescale of years with rather dramatic effects. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation happens on a 20-30 year cycle and also has rather large effects on climate. No serious climatologist would say these are caused by humans.

Thank you. I agree with you. Those two cycles are completely natural.

So why is it every time La Nina and El Nino come around, we hear about how the resulting "hotter summer" is AGW? A strong one of those two means greater impact on climate, yet we always hear about "AGW and the hottest summer on record!"

Look, the problem with climate change is the actual science is really pretty tame. You attack me for claiming that the AGW proponents are running around screaming the sky is falling and we will all die. No serious climate scientist would ever say that, you say. And you'd be right.

How many "serious climate scientists" are out there saying the sky isn't falling, over and over, to counteract the lunatics who put out commercials literally blowing up people who disagree? I don't hear of any.

In fact, humans probably do have an impact on climate. Certainly we can cut back on some pollution. But people saying that in order to protect against climate change we need to reduce human population to under a billion, and other scenarios are incredibly frightening. You "real climate change scientists" either need to explain how flat out killing off billions of people is not a rational deduction from your science, or understand that people will say you are enabling these horrific groups.

In other words, I wouldn't have a problem with the science were it not for the policies based on that science. And, of course, the stunning hypocrisy of those who are using said science to justify their policies on everything else, such as economics, population, freedoms, rights, and so forth. And since that science is being used to advance absolutely horrendous policies, it behooves a very close examination of that science. Because what's the value of being able to say: "The science demands that my wish list of policies be forced on everyone because we will all die otherwise!" And when the leading, or at least most popular scientists are part and parcel of that same group of wish lists... then pardon some of us for being skeptical. James Hansen, Micheal Mann, the leading voices want to say, "shut up and do what we say economically, socially, and politically, because we are the scientists." I have a problem with that, and so should every other real scientist.

Those claiming that all climate change is now "blamed" on humans- please read the IPCC report (as a starter). You will clearly see the amount of warming attributed to the sources in play (including the very small contribution from solar activity).As others have pointed out, you are arguing against a viewpoint that does not exist.

Look, the problem with climate change is the actual science is really pretty tame. You attack me for claiming that the AGW proponents are running around screaming the sky is falling and we will all die. No serious climate scientist would ever say that, you say. And you'd be right.

Ok, this is progress.

Quote:

In fact, humans probably do have an impact on climate. Certainly we can cut back on some pollution. But people saying that in order to protect against climate change we need to reduce human population to under a billion, and other scenarios are incredibly frightening. You "real climate change scientists" either need to explain how flat out killing off billions of people is not a rational deduction from your science, or understand that people will say you are enabling these horrific groups.

Ok, spoke too soon. More straw men.

Quote:

In other words, I wouldn't have a problem with the science were it not for the policies based on that science. And, of course, the stunning hypocrisy of those who are using said science to justify their policies on everything else, such as economics, population, freedoms, rights, and so forth. And since that science is being used to advance absolutely horrendous policies, it behooves a very close examination of that science. Because what's the value of being able to say: "The science demands that my wish list of policies be forced on everyone because we will all die otherwise!" And when the leading, or at least most popular scientists are part and parcel of that same group of wish lists... then pardon some of us for being skeptical. James Hansen, Micheal Mann, the leading voices want to say, "shut up and do what we say economically, socially, and politically, because we are the scientists." I have a problem with that, and so should every other real scientist.

You just don't learn do you? Did you pay any attention to what Wheels Of Confusion was trying to get across to you? Straw men do not make anyone want to take you seriously.

Climate change has been a real issue throughout history. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. Yet we NEVER hear about natural climate change anymore. It's all human caused, all climate change is bad, etc. When I brought it up in this thread, the answer is, "well, of course the climate changes naturally, we already measure that!"

Yes, wealreadymeasurethat. There's 5 articles looking at natural/historical climate change, just from Ars this year. Do you live in a duffel bag? Do a Google search before your make dumb comments. Sheesh.

Since I see the "Science editor" is now on board the "attack Brutha" train, whilst ignoring all the specific namecalling headed my way (I knew the new moderation policy would change nothing), I'll leave this thread with this, before I get banned for "trolling" when it is really dissent.

This article, the main one here with climate change happening in the past and not caused by humans, is of course not news. Nor am I trying to say, "see, hur hur, it happened before." I am pointing out that contrary to almost all modern day climate news, climate is naturally changing. Which everyone agrees with, so far.

So what is a natural climate change happening today similar to the Medieval warm period, or the Maunder Minimum? I asked that above, and everyone jumped on me. Someone said El Nino, and ENSO, and so forth. But what about changes that affect hundreds of years? The Malkinovich cycle was also mentioned. Pointing out that any warming or climate change we see today might be part of a natural change, just as in the past, is heresy and not consensus. Except real science says otherwise. So why is it reported as such? And why is such reporting not corrected by the "True scientists" of climate change?

And now, I'm gone. I know better than to "disrupt" the AGW consensus and corresponding policy. Ask no uncomfortable questions! Like why climate change is used so heavily to promote radical policies such as taxation for being born...and why the scientists involved seem not to care.

It's really sad that he kept repeating the same bullshit even in his parting shot. I get the feeling that he really cannot distinguish between disgust of his conduct from any content that might be worth discussing.

Since I see the "Science editor" is now on board the "attack Brutha" train, whilst ignoring all the specific namecalling headed my way (I knew the new moderation policy would change nothing), I'll leave this thread with this, before I get banned for "trolling" when it is really dissent.

This article, the main one here with climate change happening in the past and not caused by humans, is of course not news. Nor am I trying to say, "see, hur hur, it happened before." I am pointing out that contrary to almost all modern day climate news, climate is naturally changing. Which everyone agrees with, so far.

We are trying to take you seriously but it's insanely hard when you resort to straw men and hyperbole. Please link to a few (five maybe?) "modern day climate news" stories which specifically says that climate change is not naturally occurring, and only AGW is happening. Remember that lack of mention of naturally occurring climate change is not denial that it is actually occurring.

In 1500AD there were only around 500 million humans on the whole planet! Now we are pushing seven billion (and on track to push nine billion by 2025!!!).

England (and much of Europe for that matter) used to be heavily forested. Those forests are long gone, and now we are in the process of chopping down the actual lungs of the earth, ie. Rain forests of South America, Central Africa, and Asia. One only has to spend a few minutes on Google Earth to see the very visible changes made by man.

500 years ago we did not have thousands of coal burning plants, millions of acres of burning vegetation (from poor agricultural practices in the developing world), nor did we have the nearly one billion cars and airplanes.

EDIT: oh and I almost forgot to mention the oceans (once BRIMMING with life) are now systematically turning into acid baths best suited to blooms of RED TIDE and endless armies of poisonous jelly fish.

Are there any new theories as to what prompted the cold period? I had recently come across a theory that the contact with the New World and the subsequent massive population drop there, resulting in reforestation of large areas of south America in particular may have be a triggering agent.

Thoughts?

Oh, that is interesting. Link? I am curious about estimates of forest use by indigenous inhabitants. What was the population? Hundreds of thousands for the largest cities. 5-10 million total before European contact and widespread disease?

The book is up at the GF's Dad's house; I'll shoot him and email to get the reference.

Well that just plain makes sense, especially for food production. There was a paper some time ago (I believe it might have appeared on Ars even) linking mutiny to a lack of pay. It's like looking at an exercise in basic economics or psychology. You don't have enough food, and your neighbor has some. Kill your neighbor and you can get their food. One way you die, the other way you might live.

On a side note, this is why I slowly grew to despise most of my history classes in college. Most history professors loved to concentrate on this or that battle, or this one guy, or etc. Even the "smart" ones would maybe go up to "this policy" or "this organization against" whatever. Never why these things happened, never working at the problem as an aggregate system.

Are there any new theories as to what prompted the cold period? I had recently come across a theory that the contact with the New World and the subsequent massive population drop there, resulting in reforestation of large areas of south America in particular may have be a triggering agent.

Thoughts?

Did the native people's have pulp and paper mills? This theory sounds rather preposterous.

The response to global warming and human carbon emissions should be focused on replacing our fossil fuel infrastructure with a new carbon-free source. There is currently really only one way to do this economically, and that is to finish developing a technology pioneered at Oak Ridge National Laboratories back in the 60s- the molten salt reactor.

We do not have to endlessly bicker about the reality of AGW and proposals to regulate carbon emissions. We can build something far better and cheaper, that works, and which can become the dominant source of energy production within a few decades.

We can effectively replace both the coal and petroleum industries with this Green Nuclear silver bullet, but it is going to require significant public support. As people begin to understand the relationship between energy production and the economy, it should become easier to get people on board.

Which is why many of us think all of the policies dealing with global warming are crap. This technology has been around, is much safer and easier to manage. In the following decades did you ever hear the Greens or those who are so worried about our planet, advance this idea? Had they, we would have already built as many of these as we needed.

I'm relatively neutral in the climate change debate. I lack the depth of understanding to adequately evaluate research on either side.

I've observed that both sides of the debate make numerous assumptions in each piece of research that I read.

I've observed that the research is (partly due to the above) rarely very conclusive.

I've observed that scientists' results tend to fall on whichever side of the debate will prove financially advantageous for them. Scientists employed by conservative think tanks vs. scientists employed by liberal universities, for example.

I've observed that scientists who offer alternate perspectives often face a kind of ejection from their community that I can only compare to organized religions.

Again, I'm not a climate change skeptic. But with the above in mind, I don't see how anyone could possibly believe we've conclusively established the basis for climate change in light of research such as this.

Well that just plain makes sense, especially for food production. There was a paper some time ago (I believe it might have appeared on Ars even) linking mutiny to a lack of pay. It's like looking at an exercise in basic economics or psychology. You don't have enough food, and your neighbor has some. Kill your neighbor and you can get their food. One way you die, the other way you might live.

On a side note, this is why I slowly grew to despise most of my history classes in college. Most history professors loved to concentrate on this or that battle, or this one guy, or etc. Even the "smart" ones would maybe go up to "this policy" or "this organization against" whatever. Never why these things happened, never working at the problem as an aggregate system.

Are you arguing for single economic forces driving history? Economic explanations can be just as suspect as any other single "explanation". People sometimes follow behavior that yields economic benefit, but sometimes they don't. With humans it is more about probability. If you are advocating including economic issues with other causes such as battles, individuals, etc. then why were the historians "stupid" for focusing on what was a cause just not the only one? To me this seems like calling out a biologist because s/he is not a physicist, or a chemist for not being an engineer.

I'm relatively neutral in the climate change debate. I lack the depth of understanding to adequately evaluate research on either side.

So instead, "follow the money?"

Good thing science isn't a religion, and is based on empirical evidence. If you follow the empirical evidence, the models put forth by mainstream "liberal university" scientists conform much more closely to reality. This kind of "teach the debate" nonsense, at its heart, wants to be a death knell for empiricism and rationalism.

Ohmn wrote:

Which is why many of us think all of the policies dealing with global warming are crap. This technology has been around, is much safer and easier to manage. In the following decades did you ever hear the Greens or those who are so worried about our planet, advance this idea? Had they, we would have already built as many of these as we needed.

What? It's true, the "Greens" refused to endorse nuclear power (largely for misguided, three-mile-island-and-chernobyl hysteria reasons). However, their inability to craft good policy does not negate the science of runaway carbon emissions and their effect on the environment. In a perfect world we could have built as many of them as we needed, but both sides rejected it: the industrial interests too invested in coal, and the environmental movement devoted to a quixotic search for clean energy that didn't produce radioactive hazards.

arcite wrote:

Did the native people's have pulp and paper mills? This theory sounds rather preposterous.

No, but the native "people's" did have large-scale agriculture covering a significant portion of the Americas' landmass. The Spanish were direct witnesses to large (for the time, anywhere in the world) cities found in South and Mesoamerica, while there's pretty solid evidence that the diseases they brought wiped out an urban culture found in the American midwest and southeast as well (history! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippian_culture)

I think most opposition to climate science is actually more opposition to climate science *reporting* and climate *policy* myself. But it's an easy target because most people don't actually understand the science.

In 1500AD there were only around 500 million humans on the whole planet! Now we are pushing seven billion (and on track to push nine billion by 2025!!!).

England (and much of Europe for that matter) used to be heavily forested. Those forests are long gone,

Actually, both Europe and North America have more forest than they've had for more than a century, due to more productive and centralized farming practice and the end of using wood for fuel.

Quote:

and now we are in the process of chopping down the actual lungs of the earth, ie. Rain forests of South America, Central Africa, and Asia. the very visible changes made by man.

To make room for sugar cane (for fuel ethanol in Brazil) and bamboo (in East Asia, so they can sell us "guilt-free" wood products) farms.

Quote:

500 years ago we did not have thousands of coal burning plants, millions of acres of burning vegetation (from poor agricultural practices in the developing world), nor did we have the nearly one billion cars and airplanes.

500 years ago you would have been living a short, squalid, ignorant life, and would have gladly burned every tree in sight if it meant keeping your family alive for another year. Unfortunately that's why people still have to practice slash-and-burn. They key to correcting that is better farming practices for sensible crops, not subsidizing feel-good green initiatives like bio-ethanol.

/looks out his back window at the green, healthy trees in his backyard and well pumping clean water into his house.

Hyperbole much?

Quote:

EDIT: oh and I almost forgot to mention the oceans (once BRIMMING with life) are now systematically turning into acid baths best suited to blooms of RED TIDE and endless armies of poisonous jelly fish.

Guess I won't be seeing you at the beach this weekend. Make sure you get some extra filters for your gas mask, wouldn't want you inhaling anything noxious while you cower inside your home pretending the doom of the planet is upon us.

And the ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia collapsed because they salinated their croplands with over-irrigation. And the Roman empire expanded too large for its grain production ability, relying on a fickle and shrinking Nile delta. And the Easter Island inhabitants went extinct after cutting down the last tree on their tiny island.

Humans, like all species, are great at growth, but terrible at growth management. We expand beyond our capacity and experience violent collapse that reigns in our over-expansion. In fact, that may be the ONE pervasive theme in all human history, indeed in all natural history.

Consider the 10-year Lynx population cycle: In boreal Canada fast-breeding rabbit populations grow rapidly. The Lynx population follows closely behind, booming shortly after the rabbits exceed the ecosystem's ability to support them. What follows is a massive rabbit die-off, followed by a Lynx die-off. Until the cycle repeats.